Monday, September 29, 2008

More Disappointment for the Shower-Nuts

I don't have any official confirmation of this, but do have it on good authority that the petitions turned in last week by the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever were returned to them by the Montgomery County Board of Elections, who called the submission "untimely."

I do know, however, that invalid signatures in the numerator were removed but invalid dead people in the denominator were added by the judges.

You don't know anything, you got it wrong, again.

"Invalid" signatures were removed by Judge Greenberg from the numerator, however, he included over 800 "inactive" voters' signatures in the numerator as "valid" even though "inactive" voters were not included in the denominator. Does that sound fair to you?

The Court of Appeals corrected Greenberg's error and said that "inactive" voters must be included in both the numerator and denominator.

“I do know, however, that invalid signatures in the numerator were removed but invalid dead people in the denominator were added by the judges.”

Inactive voters’ signatures were included in the numerator as long as they were valid. The law stated “registered voters” not “active voters” long before the petition drive ever started, and even longer before judges had to point out to the BOE what the law actually clearly stated. You are comparing two different things and trying to make them carry your point.

Trying to claim that all inactive voters are dead when that is obviously not that case is a pretty obvious case of spin. If a person oft derided as “mentally ill,” a “sexual deviant” and a “confused guy in a dress” like myself can see through this façade, how do you expect “normal” people with half a brain not to?

Your kind of “logic” may work on the right-wing propaganda sites where people eat up large spoonfuls of this kind of tripe and savor every bite, but you’ve been blogging here long enough to know that I’m not going to let that kind of bogus rhetoric slide without pointing out the obvious flaws.

I think you misuderstand the concept of "estoppel" and are using "caveat emptor" incorrectly.

No, she's not.

"Equitable estoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which might perhaps have otherwise existed, either of property, of contract, or of remedy, as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct, and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse and who on his part acquires some corresponding right, either of property, of contract, or of remedy."

Average used by one of the anon-idiots earlier has now moved from +4 to +5, in one day.

That's why you were reduced to citing a bogus freeped AOL poll. All the trends are running (fast) in the opposite direction from what you want. All of your blah blah blah is just nonsensical whistling in the wind.

What possible effect do you think you're having with your pathetic "I can find a poll that says what I want it to" nattering?

Do you think you're actually creating the (un)reality you so desperately yearn for? Or do you think you're discouraging the liberals around here?

Either choice makes you a pathetic loser, because neither result is happening, but I really have to wonder how lame you have to be to get so desperate as you have recently.

On the merits: yes, Gallup was at 8, but that's too high right now. It was a high outlier. Now, there's three separate daily tracking polls at Obama +6, increasing exponentially the likelihood that +6 is a pretty accurate read right now. The fact that the low outlier, GW, is moving quickly in the direction of the consensus +6, is further validation of this fact.

Moreover, as noted by pollster.com yesterday, movements in the national polls have a tendency to lead movement in the state polls. That is, because there are more national polls than there are state polls, it takes some time for national trends to be reflected accurately in state by state polls, which are done less frequently and by fewer organizations (outside the FL/OH/PA triangle, there is usually one reputable pollster per state, and other than PA, I believe, no one is doing daily tracking).

So what you see nationally is going to show up in the state polls in the next week or so, thus blowing yet more holes in your Swiss Cheese Theory of Polling (SCTP).

Moreover, the polls aren't "bouncing all over the place." They're trending to Obama, fast, faster than I've seen in over 30 years of paying attention to this stuff.

Finally, if you want to know who the electorate thinks is better able to handle the economy, use your friend teh Google. The general spread is 15-20%, and it favors the Democrats. Nothing that has happened in the past two days has changed that.

The anti-gay anon is funny. He's clearly messing with people with empty, obfuscatory arguments. It's good to read the genuine responses that the real people who post here leave, though, so thanks to all of them.

Hehe. I read somewhere else about how Pelosi got the democrats to vote against the bailout so she could blame the McCain campaign. I think the Post article said the Mc-ites were saying that. Right. Even paranoids have enemies, but really!

Among registered voters, 44% blame the Congressional Republicans -- that is, the ones who actually voted against the bailout -- compared to only 21% who blame Congressional Dems, and 17% who blame both equally.

LOL, nice try but we remember all too well how your past predictions went:

President Huckabee's going to do this and president Huckabee's going to do that. The Republican's are going to clean up in the 2006 elections. Huckabee's going to be Mccain's running mate. Condoleeza Rice is going to be Mccain's running mate. Colin Powell is going to be Mccain's running mate. There's a conspiracy to make Huckabee president and Mccain's in on it. The CRW will collect enough signatures to force a referendum on the addition of trans people to the anti-discrimination law and it will pass. Despite the appeal court ruling the CRW has 10 days to collect the missing signatures and then the referendum will be on and will pass.

Based on past history your naive predictions of certainty for the future are a guarentee that Mccain will lose.

You know me, Robert. I love to watch these guys lose their cool over a few words.

You gotta wonder what gets them so hyped up. They must feel pretty insecure about the race and think if anyone gets away with saying a negative thing about Obama's chances, the whole house of cards will tumble.

Maybe they're right.

After all, the emperor has no clothes. Let's hope it doesn't take until January before someone has the guts to say it.

People get energized about their opinions, especially politics. Today in class we were discussing weather in the ancient world, and my student who heads the young republicans shared his views on global warming (as I knew he would). Within moments, there were shouts of "McCain" "Obama."

To be honest, I think it's great that so many people care so much. I'm glad my students do, even though I remind them that the most important thing in the world is Latin grammar.

I'm not a lawyer but I did go to law school part-time for a while. I've erased most of the knowledge from my mind but I think I remember the concept of estoppel.

Last I heard, "estoppel" was when an individual accrues rights because they've been led to rely on someone else's actions.

For example, if I starting letting someone live in my basement rent-free and they quit their job because I told them I'd support them while they went back to school, I might not be able to pull the rug out from under the deal because they had relied on my promises in good faith.

"caveat emptor", buyer beware in Latin, is a term used in business to refer to a situation where a sale is made without any guarantee.

I don't see how they apply to government misleading you to deprive you of your equitable rights.

You see anonymous, that is your problem. When faced with reality you get rude and nasty. No one here is shocked by your comments. I myself am amused by your attempts to either flame this post or just be plain ugly. Never mind about winning friends, you aren't even interesting enough to gain enemies, only pity.

I used "caveat emptor" as a phrase devoid of any business meaning, more in the colloquial sense. If you decide to "buy" government information for free, you have to be willing to accept that it may not be correct.

That is not often the case, but it does happen, which is why when people go to court they generally hire their own attorneys.

As for the government being protected from estoppel claims, well, that's just the way it is. As I said, we suffered from bad action on their part as well. Neither of us has a claim, and I don't think you're going to change the American legal system, however much you'd like to do so. We're all stuck with this reality.

Jim didn't delete it because Jim didn't see it. He is on the other side of the world, where your day is his night, and he sleeps when you are awake. He also has been spending his days in a conference, not always on the Internet.

Further, by the time Jim saw the ugly comment, other people had already responded to it. But I don't suppose these kinds of explanations are nearly as fascinating to you as the implication that somehow Jim didn't delete the comment because of some secret agenda, perhaps a covert alliance between Jim and this "other" Anon, or perhaps because Jim only deletes your comments mwaaaahahaha.

Some people really either don't get it, because of their poor education, or don't want to get it just to be difficult. With our Anons it is probably both.

Government decisions may be challenged; what you cannot challenge is the fact you're in a mess because the government gave you information that turned out to be wrong.

If you call the IRS with a tax question, they give you an answer and you use that information in filing your return, and it turns out the information was incorrect, you have to pay the correct tax, plus penalties and interest. It does not matter that the IRS gave you the wrong info in the first place.

"If you call the IRS with a tax question, they give you an answer and you use that information in filing your return, and it turns out the information was incorrect, you have to pay the correct tax, plus penalties and interest. It does not matter that the IRS gave you the wrong info in the first place."

Tax law is different than other law, Dana.

Under tax law, the burden of proof that an individual hasn't broken the law is on the individual.

In other areas, the burden of proof that you are guilty of a crime is on the government.

All of which is irrelevant to whether the government has the power to manipulate elections by giving out false information.

An example which counters your view is when the government fails to give you correct information about your rights under Miranda, you cannot be found guilty even if you are.

"Further, by the time Jim saw the ugly comment, other people had already responded to it. But I don't suppose these kinds of explanations are nearly as fascinating to you as the implication that somehow Jim didn't delete the comment because of some secret agenda, perhaps a covert alliance between Jim and this "other" Anon, or perhaps because Jim only deletes your comments mwaaaahahaha."

Actually since you want to discuss it further, Jim, here's my theory:

You didn't delete it because you thought you were getting some mileage out of the statement and you thought it would make all pro-family supporters look bad.

Previous concern about leaving offensive comments to Dana up were either feigned at the time or have now taken a back seat to other considerations.

You can come back now, Jim. The economic crisis is over.

btw, when you get back, check out this week's Time magazine. Apparently, Adelaide is a new world food capital.

"Anonymous" Troll:"Pro-family" ranks right up there with "Gay agenda"...meaningless unintelligent blather, devoid of any significence...except as a tool of propaganda intended to demean and dehumanize anyone who doesn't subscribe to your particular "Christian" agenda.

Calling decent citizens "predators and pedophiles" was "fun"? Lying through your teeth, having your national friends bombard the young staffers at the Council with hate mail was "fun"? Sending death threats to Duchy and me was "fun"? Sending hate mail to my sons was "fun"?

"Calling decent citizens "predators and pedophiles" was "fun"? Lying through your teeth, having your national friends bombard the young staffers at the Council with hate mail was "fun"? Sending death threats to Duchy and me was "fun"? Sending hate mail to my sons was "fun"?"

There were few doing anything like that. And those on your side joined in as well. I remember one of your posters here saying they felt liking killing me. As I recall, the individual was one of your posters who had conceded having a history of mental instability.

I didn't try to blame it on all of you.

Trying to associate everyone with the actions of a few is a typical rhetorical device of extremists.

And, yes, just watching your displays of hype and apoplexy has been highly entertaining.

There were not just "a few" doing it -- it is the core of your strategy. "Notmyshower.net," remember?

I don't know who sent the death threats to my sons and me. It was more than one person. I'm not speaking of you, but the culture you created. Your group either asked for or encouraged the national deluge of hate mail and phone calls; it wasn't a spontaneous outpouring. You could have stopped it; I managed to get one slanderous website posting pulled. If I could do it, you certainly could.

Take responsibility. You were still fear-mongering last week for no purpose other than to harass. And none of your leaders has yet to take me up on my offer to sit down and talk. That says volumes.